This is especially true for people of Aleppo. As one of the most important battleground in the war, the civilian there suffered heavily as a result of urban warfare that has raged on since the second year of the rebellion in 2012. The latest episode of suffering happened just last month as Assad and rebels fought for the northern part of the city.
This tragedy was followed by allegation that Assad is using indiscriminate weapons – and thus, according to some, effectively ‘slaughtering’ his own citizen. A series of protest emerged worldwide including here in Indonesia. Some protests were rational in which they tried to galvanize humanitarian support for the victim.
Nevertheless, some other was irrational in which they pushed international community to depose Assad. For sure, some of us surely wonder why it took so long for international community to do something in Syria. After all, they moved quick enough to oust Gaddafi in 2011 right. So, why they do nothing these days?
A bit immoral (or inhumane) isn’t it to watch millions dying and suffering while we stand by watching and doing nothing?
WELL, I do not think so. The thing about morality is that it got no universal or absolute standard. Whether what one does is moral or immoral will always open for debate. There is no universal standard of rightness or wrongness. Right or wrong was, is, and will always be relative based on one’s perspective.
That said, contrary to some of your opinion, I believe that it is immoral to depose Assad in this condition. Yes, I agree that the humanitarian tragedy is regrettable. However, one has to keep in mind that it still could be worse and one of the best ways to stop it from getting worse is by giving Assad free hand in Syria – and that is what Obama does now.
How can we come to a different conclusion? Why some believe it is better to act and oust Assad while other believes it is better to let him rule Syria? Well, as said earlier, it all comes to the different standard we are using.
For some, morality is defined by the intention. Put it simply, the right thing to do is the one that comes from sincere intention. In this situation for example, the right thing for liberal interventionist like Hillary Clinton is to intervene and defeat Assad forces. It is the right thing for them because they always care for humanity and human rights. And the humanitarian crisis does happening all over Syria now.
Just like Mrs. Clinton, neo-conservatives like Bush family, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, etc also questions Obama’s quality for standing idly and doing nothing. They want Obama to act harshly and decisively against Assad. Partly it is because of their concern regarding American indispensability and partly it is because they want to promote democracy and freedom. So, the right thing to do is to intervene since there are no democracy and freedom there.
And just like Americans (and Western Europeans as well), some Indonesians are quite idealistic when it comes to morality. “It all depends on the intention,” many Indonesians will conclude to differentiate the right from the wrong. It is pretty simple and straightforward.
However, such standard actually is problematic. It is both naïve and shortsighted. The main flaw is that such standard assumes as if every noble intention will lead to noble result. Or put it differently, as if every goodintention will translate into something good.
Unfortunately, that will not always be the case. Example one, the U.S. sees Saddam Hussein as a brutal dictator who repressed his citizens, got no appetite for democracy, no tolerance for freedom, and many more convictions. And each was true. So, they intended to end the repression, give life to democracy, and bring freedom to Iraqis by toppling Saddam. However, 13 years after the invasion, Iraq is a hollow state with practically non-functioning democracy, little freedom, and less security for the citizen.
Example two, NATO sees Muammar Gaddafi as another Saddam, as brutal, totalitarian, and repressive dictator. When Arab Spring came and there were momentum to topple him, NATO chose to topple Gaddafi. Their intention is that the disposal of Gaddafi will bring democracy, freedom, and security to Libya. Nevertheless, 5 years has passed and what they brought was only more chaotic and less secure Libya.
Both cases are only two out of many more instances where noble intention will not automatically translate into noble result. Thus, it is imprudent to define morality based on one’s intention. And this will always be an inherent flaw from using intention as one’s standard since one put overemphasize to the current motives and tend to disregard the future impact or consequence of one’s action.
OF course, there are competing narratives for this task. One of the ideas is called consequentialism. The idea is encapsulated in an old English saying, “the end justifies the means.” Put it simply, result is of paramount importance in defining morality. It does not matter with whom we cooperate or the method with which we achieve our result as long as the result morally worth it. In Churchill’s own words, “if Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
As for the Syrian Civil War, the ideal result will be to end the war itself, end the humanitarian crisis, end the regional instability that emerge as a consequence of the war, and ensure a stable Syria that cannot be used as terrorist breeding ground (just like the post-war Iraq and Libya nowadays).
That are the results we want to see by the time the Syrian quagmire ended. The question now, will deposing Assad translate into those results?
If anything, the fall of Assad will only exacerbate the problem. The thing about Middle Eastern states is that they normally need strong man (re: authoritarianism) to hold together the state. The very cohesion of the fragile nation-state depends on strong man like Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, and Assad in Syria.
The fall of any of those leaders will perpetuate constant struggle for power (re: another chapter of civil war). Just see post-war Iraq and Libya where the removal of strong man will lead only to fail-states. And the problem is, since no body is strong enough to dominate other parties, the civil war will last longer and with less certainty. In short, removing the strong man will lead to no end for the civil war, no end for humanitarian crisis, no end for the regional instability the war further exacerbated, and no stable Syria. If anything, the problem list will go even longer after the fall of Assad for sure.
Obama knew this – he has learnt a lot from Bush’s adventurism in Iraq and his own in Libya. He knew that removing the strong man (however, brutal he is) will only lead to a more chaotic and brutal society there. That is why the world (with the exception of Saudi-led Gulf states) choose to remain basically neutral these far.
LOOKING at the bigger picture of the crisis and the long-term projection, it will be better for the world to keep giving Assad regime free-hand in Syrian Civil War. The short term impact will surely be a continuing humanitarian tragedy. However, the tragedy will last shorter than if the world chose to depose Assad and his regime. Regrettably, sacrifice has to be made by Syrians for the better of the whole Middle Eastern – and the rest of the world.
Choosing intention as our morality standard is simply naïve. As for this case, it will lead Syrians nothing but to another more catastrophic civil war and destruction. Choosing consequentialism will keep Syria bloody for a short-period of time, but ultimately will bring stability back to the once peaceful and stable Syria. Written by: Zidny Ilman. Zidny Ilman is the coordinator of Indonesia Berbicara's Pusat Kajian (Research Center).
